I've recently been told that since science can't truly prove anything and we frequently find new evidence to change our minds about previous scientific claims, that believing the scientific view of how the world began (etc) requires faith and is just another type of religion. I don't know what to say to that. It seems obvious in my mind that there is a distinction, but I'm not good at wording it in an argument. A little help please?

(17-01-2013 11:51 AM)FICKLEish Wrote: I've recently been told that since science can't truly prove anything and we frequently find new evidence to change our minds about previous scientific claims, that believing the scientific view of how the world began (etc) requires faith and is just another type of religion. I don't know what to say to that. It seems obvious in my mind that there is a distinction, but I'm not good at wording it in an argument. A little help please?

Science and religion operate in entirely different, even opposite, ways.

Science admits ignorance and the provisional nature of facts. Science is not a system of beliefs, it is just a method for discovering how the universe works.

How is that anything like a religion?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I think the point was that if science has been wrong before, then science can be wrong now. Therefore, if I believe in evolution or non-creationist explanations for the world then its because I've put 'faith' in science. 1,2,6 - science is a religion *giant eyeroll*

(17-01-2013 11:51 AM)FICKLEish Wrote: I've recently been told that since science can't truly prove anything and we frequently find new evidence to change our minds about previous scientific claims, that believing the scientific view of how the world began (etc) requires faith and is just another type of religion. I don't know what to say to that. It seems obvious in my mind that there is a distinction, but I'm not good at wording it in an argument. A little help please?

Since arguing with someone like that will probably get you no place, I would probably just redirect the conversation with, "It's a meaningless point. At least there is an abundance of evidence to support my so-called 'religion'. Where's the evidence supporting yours?"

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.

(17-01-2013 12:12 PM)FICKLEish Wrote: I thought more about how you put it, I get it now. The real point being that what I believe is based in evidence and when that evidence changes then I can change, too.
thanks for answering

Yes, and religion assumes "facts".

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.

(17-01-2013 11:51 AM)FICKLEish Wrote: I've recently been told that since science can't truly prove anything and we frequently find new evidence to change our minds about previous scientific claims, that believing the scientific view of how the world began (etc) requires faith and is just another type of religion. I don't know what to say to that. It seems obvious in my mind that there is a distinction, but I'm not good at wording it in an argument. A little help please?

Since arguing with someone like that will probably get you no place, I would probably just redirect the conversation with, "It's a meaningless point. At least there is an abundance of evidence to support my so-called 'religion'. Where's the evidence supporting yours?"

I've found that when I put that question to Christians they refer back to the texts and the gospels and say "There are artifacts to back it up!"

(17-01-2013 12:14 PM)Impulse Wrote: Since arguing with someone like that will probably get you no place, I would probably just redirect the conversation with, "It's a meaningless point. At least there is an abundance of evidence to support my so-called 'religion'. Where's the evidence supporting yours?"

I've found that when I put that question to Christians they refer back to the texts and the gospels and say "There are artifacts to back it up!"

Yep, but at least then you'll be talking about artifacts instead of science being a supposed religion.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.

Science isn't a "claim", it's a "process" - the process of gathering evidence, scrutinizing the evidence, and applying the evidence to explain the world as a whole (or just tiny parts of it).

Applying science gives you the BEST decisions, the BEST conclusions based on the evidence at hand.

Religion is a "claim". It makes definite claims about the world, based on no evidence, and never changing despite the evidence.

Our understanding of the world has become MORE ACCURATE with more application of science. The world may have seemed flat in the stone age, but with the application of the scientific methods the ancient greeks learned that the world was a sphere, then with more evidence we learned the world was slightly more pear shaped. The world didn't go from a donut to a cube then to a pyramid - it became more defined, more accurate, more precise.

Saying the world is a cube - based on no evidence, and never changing from that claim despite the evidence, is a crime of the highest order against the intelligence of a human being. That's religion.